If a PC went door-to-door in a city, detecting evil, and then murdering every person who detected as evil so that they could loot the house, would that be an evil act? Because that is basically what the dwarf did.
I would warn the dwarf he's taken a step towards CE, and if he does more similar acts you'll change his alignment.
What is the dwarf's alignment currently? And is he a follower of Torag?
Heh.
An evil cleric of Abadar who walked into a law-abiding village and starting Channeling it to death should lose their powers for engaging in a blatantly chaotic act.
Abadar might give you pass for trying to pass and enforce fantasy Jim Crow laws or trying to bleed a town dry with unfair taxes, but he won't forgive acting like a bandit.
Evil can just mean "horrible a*&%@!#," not "baby eater." Like, most modern criminal groups are mostly made of the former, and keep a small number of the latter on hand for when they're "needed." Also, keep in mind that there's plenty of terrible stuff you can do that falls way short of "eating a baby."
SO yeah, the dwarf in the OP totally just murdered a person the party was chatting with for XP, which sounds like typical chaotic neutral (a.k.a., chaotic jerk) PC behavior.
This could well be chalked up to the player putting the wrong alignment down during character creation. =P
(As to the whole slavery thing - I consider the human capacity for cognitive dissonance, up to and including engaging in widespread atrocities and cruelties without any blatant malice behind them,* to be a huge part of why humans are naturally neutral and not naturally evil. I always figure a kind of key question to "is ___ evil because they did ___" is "Did they enjoy it?")
* White Man's Burden and similar things by other cultures are a great example of this - a belief that since you are stronger than your neighbors or other lands you can reach, you have a duty to subjugate them and impose your own _________ on them, though usually in such a way to guarantee that your vassals remain vassals - god forbid they aspire to become peers and seek independence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The priest pinged evil, thus any good character could kill him. Under some GMs the paladin MUST kill the hobgoblin or break their code. Under some other GMs, the paladin falls either way because you said their gods were friends, but letting an evil priest run free is not good or honorable.
This is prima facie rubbish. Where do people keep getting this idea that a paladin's job is to murder everybody they come across who shows up via detect evil?
I can't get over the fact that the dwarf was right to do what he did, if he was a follower of Torag. I don't have to like it, and I would probably make clear in any game I ran that followers of Torag are not expected to behave that way (or more likely that Torag was LN, not LG) but that doesn't detract from the fact that killing dwarven enemies is de rigeur for followers of Torag.
Had it been a lizardman, a kobold or some other humanoid that is not an enemy of dwarvenkind, it would definitely have been an evil act. Dwarves have enough enemies without starting more wars. Dwarves finish wars, not start them.
I can't get over the fact that the dwarf was right to do what he did, if he was a follower of Torag. I don't have to like it, and I would probably make clear in any game I ran that followers of Torag are not expected to behave that way (or more likely that Torag was LN, not LG) but that doesn't detract from the fact that killing dwarven enemies is de rigeur for followers of Torag.
Had it been a lizardman, a kobold or some other humanoid that is not an enemy of dwarvenkind, it would definitely have been an evil act. Dwarves have enough enemies without starting more wars. Dwarves finish wars, not start them.
Where does it say that Torag followers are supposed to kill all hobgoblins? The closest I can find is in the paladin code, where it says "Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy." But reading that to mean entire races are considered "enemies" regardless of their personal choices seems rather broad - that interpretation would force a paladin of Torag to kill another paladin if they were a giant or a goblin or something. In this case, it's hard for me to see how the cleric of Abadar could be considered "an enemy of the dwarves."
Where does it say that Torag followers are supposed to kill all hobgoblins? The closest I can find is in the paladin code, where it says "Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy." But reading that to mean entire races are considered "enemies" regardless of their personal choices seems rather broad - that interpretation would force a paladin of Torag to kill another paladin if they were a giant or a goblin or something. In this case, it's hard for me to see how the cleric of Abadar could be considered "an enemy of the dwarves."I can't get over the fact that the dwarf was right to do what he did, if he was a follower of Torag. I don't have to like it, and I would probably make clear in any game I ran that followers of Torag are not expected to behave that way (or more likely that Torag was LN, not LG) but that doesn't detract from the fact that killing dwarven enemies is de rigeur for followers of Torag.
Had it been a lizardman, a kobold or some other humanoid that is not an enemy of dwarvenkind, it would definitely have been an evil act. Dwarves have enough enemies without starting more wars. Dwarves finish wars, not start them.
Look at the dwarven racial traits:
Hatred: Dwarves gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these hated foes.
I can't get over the fact that the dwarf was right to do what he did, if he was a follower of Torag. I don't have to like it, and I would probably make clear in any game I ran that followers of Torag are not expected to behave that way (or more likely that Torag was LN, not LG) but that doesn't detract from the fact that killing dwarven enemies is de rigeur for followers of Torag.
Had it been a lizardman, a kobold or some other humanoid that is not an enemy of dwarvenkind, it would definitely have been an evil act. Dwarves have enough enemies without starting more wars. Dwarves finish wars, not start them.
Killing dwarven enemies is normal for dwarves, period. They are enemies, after all. But that doesn’t mean that every orc or goblinoid needs to be killed by every dwarf, follower of Torag, or even Paladin of Torag. Nor does it make it a good act, rather, it just means that in a fight, expectations of mercy you might see from other paladins aren’t coming from the paladin of Torag and that’s OK by Torag.
Although I will accept that some dwarves have alternative racial traits for Hatred. They all give a different enemy so it could be argued that for that particular dwarven clan, whatever the substitute is, its a racial enemy to be slaughtered on sight (even if a child).
An evil cleric of Abadar who walked into a law-abiding village and starting Channeling it to death should lose their powers for engaging in a blatantly chaotic act.
Blatantly chaotic? No, it’s blatantly evil and right, smack dab in direct affront to Abadar’s ethos. That’s why the cleric would lose his powers.
Then too, we are talking about the most religious dwarves (Paladins and Clerics mainly). Ordinary Fighters would not be expected to adhere so closely to Torags tenets, though no one could fault them if they did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I will accept that some dwarves have alternative racial traits for Hatred. They all give a different enemy so it could be argued that for that particular dwarven clan, whatever the substitute is, its a racial enemy to be slaughtered on sight (even if a child).
You don’t have to kill everything you hate. You don’t even have to fight it if that isn’t warranted.
Where does it say that Torag followers are supposed to kill all hobgoblins? The closest I can find is in the paladin code, where it says "Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy." But reading that to mean entire races are considered "enemies" regardless of their personal choices seems rather broad - that interpretation would force a paladin of Torag to kill another paladin if they were a giant or a goblin or something. In this case, it's hard for me to see how the cleric of Abadar could be considered "an enemy of the dwarves."I can't get over the fact that the dwarf was right to do what he did, if he was a follower of Torag. I don't have to like it, and I would probably make clear in any game I ran that followers of Torag are not expected to behave that way (or more likely that Torag was LN, not LG) but that doesn't detract from the fact that killing dwarven enemies is de rigeur for followers of Torag.
Had it been a lizardman, a kobold or some other humanoid that is not an enemy of dwarvenkind, it would definitely have been an evil act. Dwarves have enough enemies without starting more wars. Dwarves finish wars, not start them.
Look at the dwarven racial traits:
Hatred: Dwarves gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these hated foes.
You do realize that half-orcs have the orc subtype? It sounds like you're arguing that a paladin of Torag is bound to slaughter every single half-orc he sees. Even other paladins.
If a slag giant cleric of Torag heals an unconscious paladin of Torag, should the paladin immediately attack the cleric because "giants are enemies of dwarves"?
Where does it say that Torag followers are supposed to kill all hobgoblins? The closest I can find is in the paladin code, where it says "Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy." But reading that to mean entire races are considered "enemies" regardless of their personal choices seems rather broad - that interpretation would force a paladin of Torag to kill another paladin if they were a giant or a goblin or something. In this case, it's hard for me to see how the cleric of Abadar could be considered "an enemy of the dwarves."I can't get over the fact that the dwarf was right to do what he did, if he was a follower of Torag. I don't have to like it, and I would probably make clear in any game I ran that followers of Torag are not expected to behave that way (or more likely that Torag was LN, not LG) but that doesn't detract from the fact that killing dwarven enemies is de rigeur for followers of Torag.
Had it been a lizardman, a kobold or some other humanoid that is not an enemy of dwarvenkind, it would definitely have been an evil act. Dwarves have enough enemies without starting more wars. Dwarves finish wars, not start them.
Look at the dwarven racial traits:
Hatred: Dwarves gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these hated foes.You do realize that half-orcs have the orc subtype? It sounds like you're arguing that a paladin of Torag is bound to slaughter every single half-orc he sees. Even other paladins.
If a slag giant cleric of Torag heals an unconscious paladin of Torag, should the paladin immediately attack the cleric because "giants are enemies of dwarves"?
A fair point, but in reality it would cause all sorts of problems in any party containing a half orc and a Dwarven paladin of Torag. I suspect a certain amount of fudging would have to be called for just to keep the peace.
Personally, since learning of Torags attitude towards racial enemies, I have become a non-fan (not that I was much of a fan to begin with), but I can see how the simplicity might appeal to some.
From a practical viewpont, how would peace ever be achieved should a racial enemy desire it? do they have to discuss it over a screen so that they cannot see each other in order to prevent the dwarves feeling obliged to attack?
The whole thing seems poorly thought out, and I for one would seek to review it.
Funnily enough, giants aren't a Dwarven racial enemy (dwarves receive specialist training but they are not mentioned specifically as an enemy as far as I can see).
|
Golarion's history includes some Giant/Dwarf feuding, so if you're gonna go that route adding Giants to the list is justified.
But Torag's deity entry and Paladin code say absolutely nothing about considering entire species to be the 'enemies of your people'. Ever.
You can interpret it that way if you really want to, but nothing in Torag's entry even implies that you should do so and, as noted, it results in some stuff that doesn't make a lot of sense. So why would you interpret things that way?
A fair point, but in reality it would cause all sorts of problems in any party containing a half orc and a Dwarven paladin of Torag. I suspect a certain amount of fudging would have to be called for just to keep the peace.
Personally, since learning of Torags attitude towards racial enemies, I have become a non-fan (not that I was much of a fan to begin with), but I can see how the simplicity might appeal to some.
From a practical viewpont, how would peace ever be achieved should a racial enemy desire it? do they have to discuss it over a screen so that they cannot see each other in order to prevent the dwarves feeling obliged to attack?
The whole thing seems poorly thought out, and I for one would seek to review it.
Funnily enough, giants aren't a Dwarven racial enemy (dwarves receive specialist training but they are not mentioned specifically as an enemy as far as I can see).
What is your evidence that anything about Torag worship involves racial enmity? I just don't see where it is written, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.
As for giants, the descriptions of dwarves does say "constantly at war with giants", and there is a "Giant Hunter" alternate trait that gives attack bonuses vs giants.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the act of killing in and of itself is an evil act doesn't matter who the victim isNot only was killing the hobgoblin not evil, if they didn't kill him (and left him alone), that would have been an evil act.
Also the only sensible RAW way to run alignment is that the player picks their alignment and decides what it means. Any action can be described by any alignment.
There are precious few value systems that assert this - Pathfinder’s certainly doesn’t.
It seems like you have a generic problem player. As someone who has GM'd for several "murder hobos" in the past you have my sympathy.
Personally, I wouldn't lower anyones alignment in this case, however, for the fighter specifically I suppose it doesn't actually change anything. The paladin/warpriest at least tried to do the right thing here, and punishing them for having a murder hobo in the party bound to not go over that well. I also wouldn't curse the items arbitrarily to hand out some metagame punishment.
Couple options I might consider going with:
1. Talk to the problem player. You mentioned you already tried this, so maybe a dead end.
2. Perhaps one of the valuables the hob had is distinctive(had his name on it, unusual color, style, etc). Trying to sell it off at the wrong place could land the party in some trouble.
3. Maybe the local church of Abadar offers a reward for information about the murder of one of their priests. You can make up any story you want about how the cleric was a vital part of their organization. Your LG PCs may feel it is in their best interests to solve this murder or at least try to make amends.
the act of killing in and of itself is an evil act doesn't matter who the victim isNot only was killing the hobgoblin not evil, if they didn't kill him (and left him alone), that would have been an evil act.
Also the only sensible RAW way to run alignment is that the player picks their alignment and decides what it means. Any action can be described by any alignment.
With a very very very very long list of caveats that nobody agrees on, yes. This particular discussion is pretty much a debate on the value of different caveats. IE: He was evil, but he wasn't the type of evil that deserves smiting, but hes of an evil race, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No single action, no matter how heinous, results in an alignment shift. It takes a consistent, repeated change of behavior over a significant period of time.
Many, many GMs (including me) would vehemently disagree with that.
Even in PFS there are actions so heinous that they'd result in an immediate alignment shift.
It is quite rare for a single action to be that heinous but it is certainly possible.
I would absolutely give everyone involved there a slight alignment change. I personally like the system that Ultimate Campaign introduces with Good<->Evil and Law<->Chaos having more than just three segments. It uses nine steps, so for example, Lawful Good goes from (1,1) to (3,3) on the axes. You can easily make it more granular.
I agree with RumpinRufus that neither being a dwarf with the Hatred trait nor being a worshipper of Torag excuses murderhobo-ing any and all Goblinoids you see, even if they are Evil. In the nine-step system, I would absolutely move the Fighter towards Chaotic Evil one or two steps.
The Paladin and Warpriest didn't want to kill the Hobgoblin, sure, but they still went ahead with looting him and didn't admonish the dwarf. If they sell or use his belongings for personal gain, that would definitely warrant a slight shift towards Chaotic, maybe even Evil. If, however, they seek to return the items to the Hobgoblin's community or church, that would be a Lawful act, maybe even a Good one.
If you intend to regularly use slight alignment adjustments, do remember to not just acknowledge Chaotic or Evil acts, but also Lawful or Good ones.
the answer is always no the reasons don't matter killing is evil just because you do it for a good cause doesn't make it any less evil
The fact that Damerrich, the demigod of executions, is Lawful Good makes it pretty obvious that this is not the case in Pathfinder. He also grants his faithful Power Word Freaking Kill. And a ton of the Good deities, even Core ones, have personally slain a ton of creatures.
that still doesn't make killing a good act, the reasons of why they kill is what changes their alignment when they do kill but the act of killing is still an evil actthe answer is always no the reasons don't matter killing is evil just because you do it for a good cause doesn't make it any less evilThe fact that Damerrich, the demigod of executions, is Lawful Good makes it pretty obvious that this is not the case in Pathfinder. He also grants his faithful Power Word Freaking Kill. And a ton of the Good deities, even Core ones, have personally slain a ton of creatures.
That's a pretty weird interpretation of the rules. From what I understand, what changes your alignments are the acts. Reasons play a role, of course, but if killing was inherently evil, then killing would always, with no exception, shift your alignment towards evil.
This doesn't happen.
if you walk into a village and kill everyone your dropping to evil alignment unless you have a damn good reason
Is it evil to kill in self defense?
In defense of a loved one?In war?
By accident?
To save millions?
Duh genocide is very evil. Don't Strawman
if you walk into a village and kill everyone your dropping to evil alignment unless you have a damn good reason
I said "always" and "with no exception", your extremely specific example is completely pointless.
Do evil acts always result in a gradual alignment shift towards evil? Yes.
Does killing always result in a gradual alignment shift towards evil? No.
Therefore, killing, in itself, is not an evil act. This is basic logic.
the fact that the assassin class the class that's all about killing has to be evil tears that statement apartThere are precious few value systems that assert this - Pathfinder’s certainly doesn’t.the act of killing in and of itself is an evil act doesn't matter who the victim isNot only was killing the hobgoblin not evil, if they didn't kill him (and left him alone), that would have been an evil act.
Also the only sensible RAW way to run alignment is that the player picks their alignment and decides what it means. Any action can be described by any alignment.
It doesn’t do that at all. Assassins aren’t evil simply because they kill. It’s because of why they kill. There are other reasons for killing widely accepted as non-evil, particularly killing in self-defense or defense of others. Any interpretation of morality that defines self-defense killing as evil is very much in the minority.
Okay, let's be honest, like half the classes in Pathfinder are primarily about killing things. What makes the assassin special is that one of their entry requirements is literally "must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin." The issue isn't the killing, it's the reason for the killing. And the question here is "are the reasons good enough?"
Which classes are not primarily about killing things?
Could you name them?
You can redeem him, but leaving the guy by himself to further evil when you can stop it is evil.No it wouldn't. That's a ridiculous moral standard - it's tantamount to saying that everyone's evil because they don't wipe evil out of existence.Not only was killing the hobgoblin not evil, if they didn't kill him (and left him alone), that would have been an evil act.
How do you know he would? The future cannot be predicted.
I can't get over the fact that the dwarf was right to do what he did, if he was a follower of Torag. I don't have to like it, and I would probably make clear in any game I ran that followers of Torag are not expected to behave that way (or more likely that Torag was LN, not LG) but that doesn't detract from the fact that killing dwarven enemies is de rigeur for followers of Torag.
That doesn't make the cold-blooded murder of one any less evil.
Also, as far as the 'hatred' bit goes, don't conflate flavor text with rules text. All that trait means is that you know how to fight certain types of enemies. You are free to ignore the flavor text about 'hating' them.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest y'all don't bother arguing with Lady-J on this. We've established in past threads that their view on morality is that any killing is an evil act regardless of circumstances. They also don't differentiate between Killing and Murder.
Probably contributes to their dislike of paladins since by their definition Paladins would fall the second they kill someone.
that's what murder is killing some onekilling people is evil no matter who is doing it however it is necessary in some cases but that's part of human nature every one is capable of great good but they are also capable of great evilThat's your opinion, it is not a universal fact. I would agree that murder is evil, but killing by default is not. These two things are not by any means the same thing.
Blatantly chaotic? No, it’s blatantly evil and right, smack dab in direct affront to Abadar’s ethos. That’s why the cleric would lose his powers.
An evil cleric of Abadar who walked into a law-abiding village and starting Channeling it to death should lose their powers for engaging in a blatantly chaotic act.
Worshipers of Abadar can be evil. They're essentially heretics (just like good followers of Abadar), but they absolutely exist. If you can be evil while staying within the bounds of the law, that's good enough for Abadar.
It's chaos that Abadar will not abide.
A cleric of Abadar who annihilated a village under a lawful authority (probably because the villagers were rebels or rebe sympathizers) would probably be just fine. It'd be distasteful, but rebellion against lawful authority is unacceptable.
Abadar is not a nice god.